End of an era: the final shuttle launch.

[jbracy7]

such a sad thing,we have to hitch a ride to a space station that we help build, i still ask why? do you think they have some thing top secert to replace it with, that there not telling us about, it is kinda our goverments history to lie about some things

[themadscientist]

do you think they have some thing top secert to replace it with, that there not telling us about, it is kinda our goverments history to lie about some things

I have a source inside area 51. I keep him stocked with J-spec anime p0rn and he gets me design plans.

[alms24sebring]

PMQ.. HUBBLE TELESCOPE!!

[AZhitman]

I'll rephrase my question:

What benefits have come specifically from humans being in space?

If you have to ask, you;re either ignorant or lazy.

I'm gonna go with 30% former, 70% latter.

Perhaps you should educate yourself rather than asking to be spoon-fed.

[themadscientist]

getting his knowledge up to average level would take more than a spoon. He needs to drink from the fire hose.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXc5ltzKq3Y[/youtube]

[danshaz82]

[PoorManQ45]

I'll rephrase my question:

What benefits have come specifically from humans being in space?

If you have to ask, you;re either ignorant or lazy.

I'm gonna go with 30% former, 70% latter.

Perhaps you should educate yourself rather than asking to be spoon-fed.

The latter percentage is probably accurate

The fact remains that many things that were developed, or advanced, to allow for space travel already existed and were simply modified to allow them to function in outer space.

Many people give Nasa credit for things that they did not invent, but rather licensed from the company that created it.

Satellites are launched on unmanned rockets now. No need there.

The information gained about the effects on the human body from being in a low gravity situation, while interesting, are useless currently. I find it interesting that the Russians knew this much earlier then the Americans. Hmmm...

The space shuttle program has been a flop in terms of scientific developments. Far more things have been invented and improved upon by the researchers at NASA while on the ground!

[bigbadberry3]

The latter percentage is probably accurate

The fact remains that many things that were developed, or advanced, to allow for space travel already existed and were simply modified to allow them to function in outer space.

Many people give Nasa credit for things that they did not invent, but rather licensed from the company that created it.

Satellites are launched on unmanned rockets now. No need there.

The information gained about the effects on the human body from being in a low gravity situation, while interesting, are useless currently. I find it interesting that the Russians knew this much earlier then the Americans. Hmmm...

The space shuttle program has been a flop in terms of scientific developments. Far more things have been invented and improved upon by the researchers at NASA while on the ground!

So NASA had a significant role in developing and advancing technologies, yet you don't want to give them credit for doing that work simply because they didn't create the idea. That's just poor man logic.

[tigersharkdude]

got a question to any space shuttle nerds.

I dont know a whole lot about the shuttle's, although Ive always been fascinated with them.

My question, when they fire the engine's (like mere seconds afterword) in video's Ive often wanted to know what something is. At about 24 seconds into this video you will see what looks to be an electrical arcing, what is it that Im seeing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EFuLap5Pgg

[bigbadberry3]

"Those sparks are called our hydrogen burn-off igniters and they are intended to burn free hydrogen. When we start up the engines, there is a little bit of hydrogen that comes out that hasn't ignited yet when combined with the oxygen in the system. Also, if we do have an on-pad engine shutdown after we've started the engines and have to turn them off for some reason, we shut down fuel rich as well meaning that the last bit of fuel that comes out of the engines will be hydrogen. So, those sparklers, that we like to call them, will burn off free hydrogen in the atmosphere rather than let it ignite on its own as it travels up the side of the ship. That's a safety consideration. It burns hydrogen before it causes us any trouble."

[carloslebaron]

Well, thanks to the Space Station -which was made by Russians-

This and other things you just said in the last post? Don't exaggerate and pass it off as fact, ok...

Oh please, because you don't like someone must not be a cause to assert without a valid reason that he/she exaggerates when talks about an issue. Just go to any used book store or library and pick up the 2001 National Geographic, January magazine. and check that my message is repeating in a simple way the effects of low gravity in the human body.

And worst, there are more negative side effects written in those articles. (because there are two main articles about this topic.

The experiments in outer space gave very interested results, like, thanks to these tests, we found out that there is a little tiny creature that can survive living "naked" in the outer space. Tha was a fantastic discovery.

Who said that those experiments weren't worthy? On the contrary, they have gave lots of answers for several observations made in the past that were incognito for us.

NASA released some of them, I think those articles still posted in their web page until today.

I tried to answer in specific the question posted in the first message, apparently neither you or others want to recognize the crude reality about the hard to be for humans to survive in outer space. I guess many people should stop brainwashing themselves with fiction literature and movies, and start to get informed with real scientific information, because I understand that is painful when someone that you don't like, breaks the fantasy and showes you things the way they are.

My regards.

[Bubba1]

If you have to ask, you;re either ignorant or lazy.

I'm gonna go with 30% former, 70% latter.

Perhaps you should educate yourself rather than asking to be spoon-fed.[/quote]

+100. Brien, it seems you regularly try to provoke people to shoot from the hip to asnswer so you can pounce on them, rather than take 30 seconds to look it up yourself.

It is a shame that the shuttle program has ended, but it's not all that surprising
given it's extreme high cost to operate and our country's economic situation. If NASA can maintain the same funding levels post shuttle and re-invest it on some of their other projects, the program should continue to bear fruit.

[tigersharkdude]

"Those sparks are called our hydrogen burn-off igniters and they are intended to burn free hydrogen. When we start up the engines, there is a little bit of hydrogen that comes out that hasn't ignited yet when combined with the oxygen in the system. Also, if we do have an on-pad engine shutdown after we've started the engines and have to turn them off for some reason, we shut down fuel rich as well meaning that the last bit of fuel that comes out of the engines will be hydrogen. So, those sparklers, that we like to call them, will burn off free hydrogen in the atmosphere rather than let it ignite on its own as it travels up the side of the ship. That's a safety consideration. It burns hydrogen before it causes us any trouble."

Thats not what im referring to. Look at this picture, inside the nozzle you will see something white near the edge of the nozzle. It starts in the middle of the nozzle and gets bigger until it reaches the edge.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

http://wimp.com/goingspace/
You don't need tangible results to have a damn good reason to go into space.

[bigbadberry3]

"Those sparks are called our hydrogen burn-off igniters and they are intended to burn free hydrogen. When we start up the engines, there is a little bit of hydrogen that comes out that hasn't ignited yet when combined with the oxygen in the system. Also, if we do have an on-pad engine shutdown after we've started the engines and have to turn them off for some reason, we shut down fuel rich as well meaning that the last bit of fuel that comes out of the engines will be hydrogen. So, those sparklers, that we like to call them, will burn off free hydrogen in the atmosphere rather than let it ignite on its own as it travels up the side of the ship. That's a safety consideration. It burns hydrogen before it causes us any trouble."

Thats not what im referring to. Look at this picture, inside the nozzle you will see something white near the edge of the nozzle. It starts in the middle of the nozzle and gets bigger until it reaches the edge.

If you go back and watch the video, I think it's the material of the nozzle reacting to the temperature change? It's not a specific piece from what I can tell.

[nissangirl74]

http://wimp.com/goingspace/
You don't need tangible results to have a damn good reason to go into space.

I really liked this link. It's a good explanation as to why we need to do certain things in order for the program to be viable and successful again.

[jbracy7]

do you think they have some thing top secert to replace it with, that there not telling us about, it is kinda our goverments history to lie about some things

I have a source inside area 51. I keep him stocked with J-spec anime p0rn and he gets me design plans.

really i hope it doesnt get lost in your rectum

[PoorManQ45]

So NASA had a significant role in developing and advancing technologies, yet you don't want to give them credit for doing that work simply because they didn't create the idea. That's just poor man logic.

They had to modify a lot of EXISTING devices to allow them to function in space.

The advancements were done by OTHER companies in many cases.

Again, the NASA space shuttle program has not provided much in the way of scientific advances.

The things created by/for NASA were mostly terrestrial born.

So, maybe you guys are missing my questions purpose, I am asking what advances have come exclusively from being IN space. I am not talking about things required to get TO space.

Again, when the American astronauts were in space what scientific developments were made exclusively from them being there?

The only response I've seen was the study of decreased gravity on the human body. That's pretty cool to know.

[ADDirishboy]

They had to modify a lot of EXISTING devices to allow them to function in space.

The advancements were done by OTHER companies in many cases.

Again, the NASA space shuttle program has not provided much in the way of scientific advances.

The things created by/for NASA were mostly terrestrial born.

So, maybe you guys are missing my questions purpose, I am asking what advances have come exclusively from being IN space. I am not talking about things required to get TO space.

Again, when the American astronauts were in space what scientific developments were made exclusively from them being there?

I'm gonna pull a Brien here. Why don't YOU show US exactly what devices NASA merely enhanced for space travel.

You show me exactly what things you're talking about here. Take that list of 10 things that NASA developed/modified from the link on page 1 and show me which ones NASA didn't do much on.

You want everyone to do all the work for you? Let's reverse the role a little bit. Prove to all of us that NASA is worthless and has developed nothing to benefit society by launching people into space.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

So, maybe you guys are missing my questions purpose, I am asking what advances have come exclusively from being IN space. I am not talking about things required to get TO space.

It's the same thing dude. You can't argue for going into space without bringing about all the technology required to get us there...it just doesn't make sense.
When or if we finally do get to Mars we won't be extolling the virtues of what we find there because we pretty much know what's in store for us. No...we will have gained much more insight from our journey. Such as keeping astronauts healthy(Physically and mentally) for a year or more in space.
Granted, we could accomplish those tasks via robotic avatars (As the rovers have more than exemplified) far cheaper and faster but putting boots on dust will always be the ultimate goal as long as humans retain their wanderlust.

[Dattebayo]

Oh please, because you don't like someone must not be a cause to assert without a valid reason that he/she exaggerates when talks about an issue.

WTF is your problem? Who said anything about that?

I tried to answer in specific the question posted in the first message, apparently neither you or others want to recognize the crude reality about the hard to be for humans to survive in outer space. I guess many people should stop brainwashing themselves with fiction literature and movies, and start to get informed with real scientific information, because I understand that is painful when someone that you don't like, breaks the fantasy and showes you things the way they are.

You seem to be ignoring a large part of the technology that is/was being developed to counter those problems. Either that, or you are ignorant of it. Either way is no excuse when you put yourself in a position claiming to know all about space and the issues associated with it.

And again, like an as$, you automatically assume we use fantasy and movies as a basis for what there is out there. Seriously, grow up and try to debate without loading your post up with negative attention and finger pointing.

[AZhitman]

The only response I've seen was the study of decreased gravity on the human body. That's pretty cool to know.

That's because you're lazy.

Any clue how the ISS got built and supplied?

Contrarians are interesting people when they're educated and knowledgeable.

[PoorManQ45]

You show me exactly what things you're talking about here. Take that list of 10 things that NASA developed/modified from the link on page 1 and show me which ones NASA didn't do much on.

10: http://tinyurl.com/6yrem29
http://www.google.com/patents?id=6NRtAA ... &q&f=false

9: http://64.8.116.193/archive/2010/11/16/ ... ional.aspx
http://tinyurl.com/8woqc

8: Appears to be completely developed by the Nasa AMES research center

I'll do some more research when I get some time.

[AZhitman]

Trollin' is a habit.

If you have to look it up on Google, you don't know what you're talking about. Therefore, you're trolling.

Back on topic.

[ADDirishboy]

Also, Are you seriously using wiki as a legitimate citing source? They don't allow that in high school OR college, so it ain't gonna fly here. And that Canadian site? Really? There was a link to an article about vampires. Find some legit sources.

[Razi]

See troll avatar.
Disregard post.

[Dattebayo]

Pan-spermea. We all need to ejaculate into space so that we may live on.

/thread

[PoorManQ45]

Trollin' is a habit.

If you have to look it up on Google, you don't know what you're talking about. Therefore, you're trolling.

Back on topic.

Are you being serious? I have a feeling that you're trying to troll me.

I did not use Wiki as my main reference. I used the US patent office. The link to wiki is a brief story of the history of the item. I realize that you guys have a huge issue with wiki due to the issue with the 240sx(or was it q45?) article having inaccuracies. That previous issue does not mean that you should blinding ignore the FACT that a patent was filed AND granted without reference to NASA.

If you'd like to say I don't know something because I had to google references to back up the information I knew then that is your choice. For a reference, Dennis(Q45tech) used to provide references all the time to back his information. These references could be found through google. Does that make the information any less valid? No.

The acquisition of the information is not of any importance. What is important is the validity of the information. If you have information that disputes the information that I provided please show it. I was asked, in a reversal(which is not appropriate as I was the one that asked for proof!), to provide information and I have.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

As an Engineer I'm pretty upset about the lack of NASA activity.

Our government is always preaching about how important math, science, and engineering is in our school systems. Honestly, its time to nut up or shut up. Practice what you preach. I constantly see public projects that are half-assed and under engineered. Roadways, bridge systems, intersections that all suck out loud. This also nods to the government wanting us to be more fuel efficient and whatnot. Why not help us then? Why put traffic lights on main highways and roads when you could invest in onramps/offramps? Sure its cheaper today, but what the crap man.

I can honestly say that Germany has us beat in that department.

[sbird1]

Is no one in here talking about the new Orion and Ares rockets that are in development? I, personally, am happy to see the shuttles go in favor of new vehicles that can go deeper into space. I hope they aren't going to be in development for that much longer before we get to see a good old fashioned rocket on the launchpad. From what I've read and seen, the end of the shuttle is a good thing for NASA. I think the next 20 years or so are going to be very interesting, particularly with the prospect of a manned mission to Mars.